Florida Business's Sue in Federal Court to Stop New Guns in Parking Lot Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
depends on the type of stock. You can own equity and not legally own property.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but the question remains, what if you own the type that conveys ownership? The corporate management isn't the property owner any more than you are, correct?
 
Actually, nice thought, if I own company stock (an equity instrument), then am I not an "owner" of that same company? How is it then that Disney, Busch Gardens, etc. think they can prohibit from carrying on my property? What about property rights? Lol. :neener:
 
As a stockholder, you are not the "owner" you are an investor that loans money to the corp in exchange for a vested interest in the company. The difference? You are not held personally accountable for what the corp does. If the corp loses a lawsuit, the most you lose is your investment.

A corporation is a legal invention that creates an entity that exists only on paper, and thus under the "natural rights" theory that our entire constitution is based on, it has no natural rights.

This law does not interfere with property rights, it strikes a balance between the rights of two property owners: The owner of the parking lot, and the owner of the car.

The owner of the car keeps his gun on his property, and the owner of the lot keeps the gun of of his property. Just because I park my property on your land does not make you the owner or controlling entity over my car. You cannot set it on fire, damage it, or even sell it. You can't give consent to the police for a search of MY car, just because it is on your land. It remains my property.

Don't like it? You don't have to have a parking lot. Problem solved.
 
Owning interest in a company does not make you the owner or even part owner of the property. The company owns the property. That is one of the joys of companies. Companies form a barrier between you and liability.

What good would a company be if you could be sued every time someone slipped on the ice in the company lot? What good would a company be if every creditor could come after you every time a company you held interest in went belly up? You are not the company. The only loss you can suffer is that sum of money you have invested in the company - unless you are an officer or agent of the company and you do something illegal, at which time you can be held accountable for your misdeeds.

For the protection a company offers, the company must operate within very specific guidelines - subject to audit, rules and regulations(laws) that would make a prison seem like a country club, and generally may not infringe upon the rights or powers of any stock holder, officer, or employee.

A company does not own the space above the surface of the parking lot. The parking lot is an area set aside by the company for the convenience of its employees. The company does not assume any liability if you get in a wreck in the lot. The company does not own your personal car. Your homeowners policy will generally cover anything stolen from your car while in a company lot, not the company or its insurance.

While the company may restrict who uses that lot, the company has no jurisdiction over what is within any vehicle, may not seize your vehicle, and may not search or authorize anyone else to search your vehicle. A warrant is required to authorize a search of your vehicle.

Some companies usurp power at least as bad as Congress, the Court, and the Executive. While the IRS sometimes treats companies the same as individual tax payers, it doesn't change any of the laws companies must operate under, does not(can't) grant any of the rights an individual has to a company, or grant any powers to a company beyond those granted to a company by the law that allows for the creation of said companies.

A good way to keep all this straight in your mind is to remember the nature of the law vis-a-vis people verses companies: Laws prohibit people to do certain things, while laws specify what a company may or must do within certain limits. People are free up to the point they might break the law, companies may only to do what is specified within the law.

Another way to see it is to remember that people have rights, companies only have the powers granted to them in the law.

Woody

Our government was designed by our Founding Fathers to fit within the framework of our rights and not vise versa. Any other "interpretation" of the Constitution is either through ignorance or is deliberately subversive. B.E. Wood
 
"Uh... yeah, Bob. Listen... um. All of us in the office are feeling a little uneasy about you taking the whole 'life' thing so seriously. In fact, I'd say that your regarding your own life as so precious is creating a hostile work environment. Unless you can mellow out and come to the conclusion that if somebody wants to kill you, they should be able to without any struggle on your part - we're going to have to let you go. Sorry."
Click to expand...

That is very good .cheese.Very good.
 
divemedic:

A corporation is a legal invention that creates an entity that exists only on paper, and thus under the "natural rights" theory that our entire constitution is based on, it has no natural rights.
Click to expand...

Exactly, which is what my "innocent" question was leading to.

ConstitutionCowboy:

While the company may restrict who uses that lot, the company has no jurisdiction over what is within any vehicle, may not seize your vehicle, and may not search or authorize anyone else to search your vehicle. A warrant is required to authorize a search of your vehicle.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. Additionally, if an agent of the company attempts to enter your vehicle without your consent to search it, he or she is committing burglary of a motor vehicle, a criminal offense. You may use reasonable force to prevent the commission of a felony and damage to your personal property. I can't see any scenario where the state should even have to pass a law on the subject. The only reason a law needs to be passed is that apparently the courts have been far too lenient on corporate criminality. THAT'S what the "business owners" are upset about, loss of their special status and the inability to exercise petty tyranny over citizens. "Property rights" my Aunt Rosie's knickers... :banghead:
 
If it's a private company and you park on their property I must say that I tend to believe their private property rights trump 2A rights.
Click to expand...

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Click to expand...

However, it appears to state that you cannot be deprived of property without due process. Is trespass ony covered under state law? Another question for the legal types.
Click to expand...

Dick, it's laughable for a business that provides parking for its customers and employees to accuse them of trespass for using that parking lot.

It's equally laughable for businesses to accuse government of violating due process in taking its property for public use simply because the government asserts that people who use those business parking lots--at the invitation of the businesses--retain their Constitutional rights.

There's no rational connection between a business's right to place reasonable limits on an employee's First Amendment right to free speech while he is on company property and its desire to abolish the employee's other rights. It's obvious that no restaurant employee should have a First Amendment right to tell customers that the food being served them is awful and that there's a much better place to eat down the road. In such a situation the employee's speech directly impacts his employer's business and is not protected.

But where an employee's exercise of his Constitutional rights--or rights granted under state law--do not impact the employer's business, the employer needs to mind his own business and not interfere in the lives of his employees. It's difficult to see how an employee affects his employer's business by keeping a legally permitted firearm locked in his own vehicle and concealed from public view. And yet employers have had gun sniffing dogs identify such employee vehicles and have had guards search them. Do you really want to defend such actions? I don't see that they are defensible.

This situation is much simpler than some people assert.
 
There's no rational connection between a business's right to place reasonable limits on an employee's First Amendment right to free speech while he is on company property and its desire to abolish the employee's other rights.
Click to expand...

That is because we are not comparing apples to apples. To make a fair comparison, a business prohibiting possession of books in your car would be closer to what we are talking about when applying 1A to this discussion.

If a business were campaigning to be able to fire employees for having a Bible in their car, we would be having a different argument.
 
Dick, it's laughable for a business that provides parking for its customers and employees to accuse them of trespass for using that parking lot. ...This situation is much simpler than some people assert..
Click to expand...

It may be laughable but a business can request that a customer or employee leave their property and not return and have legal recourse if you do not comply. If you are dismissed they can control your access to return and get your personal posessions as well.

the state of FL considers your car an extension of your home for the purposes of self defense inside it... under that logic, the car is off limits to such a prohibition...
Click to expand...
This makes sense to me. If it's gone through the process for some other case and has come to this I would agree.

This law would be more analogous to the parking lot law, you can leave your "gayness" or your religion behind when you come to work. After all if you don't tell anyone how would they know? In many states and municipalities, these are protected groups.

Concealed carry permit holders are a special group and as such also may be in need of special protection under the law.
Click to expand...
I like this idea as well. While I usually think of protected groups being a group for some reason they have no control over, such as race or gender.

Actually I'd like for us to be a protected class. That would cover CCW as well as let me explain to my wife why I purchased another gun. "Honey, I couldn't help it, I'm genetically driven to purchase firearm..." :evil: I don't think she would buy it, but it would be enough of an excuse for me!

P.S. - I'm really enjoying this thread, lot's of good thinkers on this forum (although I am not usually accused of that) :)
 
It isn't going to be overturned on property rights. It is going to be overturned on OSHA regulations just like they did here in Oklahoma.
 
I still don't think that the decision in OK will stand.

ETA:

The reason that this will not stand is that the decision states that under the OSH general duty clause, employers are required to provide a safe workplace. Since a significant number of people are injured and killed by firearms while at work, all employers that are subject to the OSH act MUST have a no firearms policy. This would have the effect of prohibiting all guns in all workplaces, and the employer has no choice in the matter. This has the effect of placing a nationwide federal firearms ban. The decision will not stand. Those of you that think this is a property rights issue, notice how the anti's are taking away the property owner's right to allow weapons.

The decision is based in large part upon an anti gun article "ARTICLE: THIS GUN FOR HIRE: CONCEALED WEAPONS LEGISLATION IN THE WORKPLACE AND BEYOND" which advocates the SCOTUS making a ruling that all CCW laws be struck down as violations of the OSH act.


Read the relevant portion of the decision below:

Even in light of the broad obligations imposed by the general duty clause, the Court initially had concerns as to whether an employer's obligations under the general duty clause extend to the prevention of workplace violence and, in particular, workplace violence committed with firearms. After review of various published materials discussing the OSH Act and workplace violence, the Court is convinced the OSH Act's general duty clause extends to potential dangers posed by unauthorized firearms on company property and, specifically, the danger of workplace violence committed against employees.

[...]

Second, on the OSHA website, there is a specific page devoted to the topic of "workplace violence." This page provides:

Violence in the workplace is a serious safety and health issue. Its most [**140] extreme form, homicide, is the fourth-leading cause of fatal occupational injury in the United States. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries (CFOI), there were 551 workplace homicides in 2004 in the United States, out of a total of 5,703 fatal work injuries. 57 Environmental conditions associated with workplace assaults have been identified and control strategies implemented in a number of work settings. OSHA has developed guidelines and recommendations to reduce worker exposures to this hazard but is not initiating rulemaking at this time.

Third, OSHA has enacted voluntary guidelines dealing with workplace violence in night retail establishments and the health care and social service fields. See OSHA Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence Among Health Care and Social Service Workers, 25 O.S.H. Rep. (BNA) 1439, 1440 (March 13, 1996); OSHA Guidelines for Workplace Violence Prevention Programs for Night Retail Establishments, 25 O.S.H. Rep. (BNA) 1591, 1591 (Apr. 15, 1996). The guidelines related to health care and social service [**142] workers expressly mention "[t]he prevalence of handguns and other weapons among patients, their families or friends" as a "risk factor" leading to an increased risk of work-related assaults. See OSHA Guidelines for Preventing Workplace Violence Among Health Care and Social Service Workers, 25 O.S.H. Rep. (BNA) 1439, 1440 (March 13, 1996). While these voluntary guidelines are not considered OSH Act "standards," they evidence that workplace violence is within the scope of the OSH Act and that OSHA has offered specific suggestions for reducing workplace violence at certain establishments.

[...]

Fifth, in addressing the effect of concealed weapons legislation on the workplace, commentators have opined that employers must be able to enact "no firearm" policies such as those enacted by Plaintiffs in order to comply with the OSH Act. See A. Nicole Hartley, Comment, Business Owner Liability and Concealed Weapons Legislation: A Call for Legislative Guidance for Pennsylvania Business Owners, 108 PENN ST. L. REV. 637, 646 (2003) [hereinafter Business Owner Liability] (concluding that "f OSHA recognizes workplace violence, then employers [**145] who prohibit weapons could be eliminating foreseeable hazards"); Gun For Hire, supra (arguing that employers' policies prohibiting weapons are reasonable and permissible even when they are contrary to rights given to citizens by concealed weapons legislation due, in part, to an employer's obligations under the OSH Act). One commentator concluded:

Given the current workplace violence statistics, it does not require a great leap of imagination to conclude that allowing employees to bring weapons into the workplace, even lawfully, would increase the potential hazard of workplace violence. Moreover, a cogent argument could be made that such hazards are now objectively "recognizable," and therefrom, employers are on notice of the hazard of workplace violence in light of the recent publication of various statistics as well as the promulgation of OSHA guidelines. . . . Therefore, employers can reasonably adopt policies of prohibiting concealed weapons in the workplace predicated upon the employer's [*1333] legal duty to provide a safe workplace for employees.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Florida isn't exactly known for it's wonderful property rights. I think everyone here from Florida has seen that with what Florida has been doing with eminent domain.

I sit squarely on the fence on this issue. I have a right to carry my weapon, but my employer also has his rights on his private property. My rights don't come before his, nor his mine.

There is no fair way to settle this.
 
Businesses don't give a crap about constitutional property rights - all they care about is their perceived liability. They use the Constitution as a ploy to deceive some conservatives who think they still live in a castle.
 
I sit squarely on the fence on this issue. I have a right to carry my weapon, but my employer also has his rights on his private property. My rights don't come before his, nor his mine.

There is no fair way to settle this.
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail on the head, or maybe I should say hit the bullseye. Ultimately any decision will be unfair to someone. :(
 
Businesses don't give a crap about constitutional property rights - all they care about is their perceived liability. They use the Constitution as a ploy to deceive some conservatives who think they still live in a castle.
Click to expand...

They do when they are being trampled and they ARE being trampled in this bill.

A business should have the right to say what I can and can not bring on their property. I can tell you not to bring something on my private property, why can't they?

Like I said, this is going to be unfair to one side or the other.

At tad bit more of me is starting to side with the businesses. If I was a business owner, I should have the right to say what can and can't happen on that property just like my home. If you don't like that, go work somewhere else.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the whole "vehicle is an extension of your home". If my vehicle was an extension of my home, then tint laws are unconstitutional. If my car is an extension of my home and I can have blinds on my home's windows, then I should be able to tint my cars windows as dark as I please. Florida law says otherwise. The only time a vehicle is an extension of your home is when it applies to self defense and that has nothing to do with this. This is about keeping your weapon in your car while you are inside at work. You are hardly defending yourself when your carry weapon is locked in your car. So self defense and your car being an extension of your home have nothing to do with this.

As a gun owner, I'm not having my rights taken away. If I don't like that businesses rules, I can go elsewhere. Just like if I don't like what a radio station is transmitting I can move the dial, or change the channel on a TV.

My right of choice is still there.

If I can't find a job that will let me keep my weapon in my car, that is my problem, not the government's or the business' problem.
 
I really don't see the issue. If someone is going to commit a violent act in the workplace no law is going to stop them. However for an entity with no rights to prohibit a person from protecting themselves, well, that entity just assumed the responsibility for your safety and well-being. I think its only a matter of time before someone sues on this basis.

You can't have it both ways. Either I can exercise my guaranteed rights or you assume the responsibilty for safety by prohibiting me from doing so.

ETA: I know what I just posted should be common sense but when has that mattered in the last 50 years!
 
Last edited:
Business are already liable for your safety and well being.

But how to you expect to protect yourself when the criminal is standing between you and your gun that's locked up in your car?

You wanted common sense, well there it is...What good is your weapon outside in your car?

Let's take your common sense one step further shall we?

You're at work, an attacker enters the building. You run outside and get your weapon from your car. You run back inside? You run back inside and confront the situation when you had the oppertunity to simply drive away? How is a jury going to view that? You had a means of escape yet you chose to escalate your situation. That's how it will play out in a court you can pretty much bet on that. How will the jury full of sheep look at that? Heroism or stupidity? Bravery or bloodlust?

The fact of the matter is that the gun isn't doing you a damn bit of good locked up in your car. So why have this law anyways? What we should have been attacking is stopping employers from saying you can't carry on their property, the hell with leaving it in the car.
 
First of all, let me assure you that equity shareholders ARE legal owners of the corporation. They do not just "loan" money to the company. The folks who loan money are bondholders. However, in order to to avail themselves of the limited liability protections that go with incorporation, the equity owners give up direct control of the business, and elect a board of directors who hire the upper-level management team, who hire the next level of managers, who hire. . . You get the picture.

The question of property rights versus self-defense rights is a thorny one. On the whole, I think that this is one area where we need to limit a business' right to ban guns from cars in a parking lot. The thing to remember is that, to most corporate management, the only thing that they care about in this whole issue is their legal liability. I think that the solution is to give business' some limited immunity from lawsuits arising from employees keeping guns in their cars, and make businesses that ban guns from employee cars liable for any injury to the employee that results from third-party criminal actions either on the employer's premises or while the employee is directly in route to or from work. If the law did that, I suspect that this whole argument would go away.
 
You wanted common sense, well there it is...What good is your weapon outside in your car?

Let's take your common sense one step further shall we?

You're at work, an attacker enters the building. You run outside and get your weapon from your car. You run back inside? You run back inside and confront the situation when you had the oppertunity to simply drive away? How is a jury going to view that? You had a means of escape yet you chose to escalate your situation. That's how it will play out in a court you can pretty much bet on that. How will the jury full of sheep look at that? Heroism or stupidity? Bravery or bloodlust?

The fact of the matter is that the gun isn't doing you a damn bit of good locked up in your car. So why have this law anyways? What we should have been attacking is stopping employers from saying you can't carry on their property, the hell with leaving it in the car.
Click to expand...

How about the reason for this law:

You leave your gun at home. You go to work. Nothing happens. You come home to find your abusive ex-husband already in your house waiting for you. Unfortunately you cannot get to your gun because you left it in the safe. So, you take the beating and hope he doesn't choose to kill you this time.

Oh? The company? What do they care, its not their problem. Except when they fire you because you can't come to work while you are in the hospital.


To those that say a business owner should have the right to say what goes on in his property, I will agree.

If the full, liable owner of a business wants to make rules for his property, go ahead.

If a manager is making these rules, that's not property rights.

Corporations are not people. Corporations do not have rights.
 
Oklahoma's law of a similar bent was overturned based on OSHA safe workplace requirements it is currently under appeal at the dist. court level
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/artic..._A1_hHeis85083

Quote:
U.S. District Judge Terence Kern issued a permanent injunction against an Oklahoma law that would have kept employers from banning firearms at the workplace under certain conditions.

Kern decided in a 93-page written order issued Thursday that the amendments to the Oklahoma Firearms Act and the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act, which were to go into effect in 2004, conflict with a federal law meant to protect employees at their jobs.

Kern said the amendments "criminally prohibit an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries and cannot co-exist with federal obligations and objectives."
Click to expand...


What I do not understand is: What basis did Kern have, to rule that it *IS* an effective method of reducing gun-related workplace injuries .

It seems completely caprecious and unrelated to the facts heard in the case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
NRA & AFL-CIO Agree:Guns Locked in Cars in Florida, A-OK
Replies
0
Views
505
Winchester 73
W
W
  • Locked
"Gun Lobby Has Property Rights in its Sights":Pro-gun Business Leader Doesn't Get It
2 3
Replies
66
Views
4K
qdemn7
Q
S
  • Locked
Florida Carry Sues Over University Parking Lot Gun Ban
Replies
2
Views
471
armoredman
armoredman
D
  • Locked
New laws in effect today
Replies
9
Views
460
beerslurpy
B
S
  • Locked
Proposed Florida law: Companies can't keep employees from bringing guns to work
2
Replies
45
Views
1K
joab
J
Back
Top